In Re RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Star- light Consulting Services, dba Starlight… v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 1950 . Because Mr.…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re RICARDO J. CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Star-
light Consulting Services, dba Starlight Entertain-
ment Enterprises, Inc., dba Starlight Music
Management, Inc.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-151
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:25-cv-01073-KCD, Judge
Kathryn C. Davis.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Ricardo J. Calderon Lopez filed a complaint at the
United States Court of Federal Claims along with a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On July 24, 2025, the
court denied the IFP motion because of his history of filing
complaints that were frivolous or filed in a court that
lacked jurisdiction and because the current complaint “suf-
fers from similar deficiencies.” ECF No. 2 at 15. Mr. Lopez
moved for reconsideration, which the court denied on Au-
gust 28, 2025. On September 5, 2025, he filed this petition
Case: 25-151 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 10/28/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE LOPEZ 2
attaching a copy of the trial court’s August 28, 2025 order
requiring him to pay the filing fee.
Orders denying IFP status are generally immediately
appealable. See Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of
Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950). Because Mr. Lopez’s peti-
tion, liberally construed, can be understood as challenging
the trial court’s denial of IFP status, we construe it as a
timely notice of appeal, and thus mandamus relief is not
available. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989) (holding that a party seek-
ing a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other
adequate means of attaining the relief, such as by appeal);
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383
(1953) (noting “whatever may be done without the writ may
not be done with it”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied. ECF No. 2 is treated as a
timely notice of appeal consistent with Rule 4(d) of the Fed-
eral Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Clerk of Court shall
transfer this matter to the court’s normal appeals docket.
(2) The Clerk of Court shall also transmit Mr. Lopez’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
and a copy of this order to the normal appeals docket.
Case: 25-151 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 10/28/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE LOPEZ 3
(3) Within 40 days of the date of docketing of this mat-
ter on the court’s regular docket, the parties are directed to
address whether this appeal should be dismissed as frivo-
lous or whether the judgment of the trial court should be
summarily affirmed. See generally 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing that “the court shall dismiss
the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the
action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious”). The pro-
ceedings in the appeal are otherwise stayed.
October 28, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-151 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 10/28/2025

-- 3 of 3 --